Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38354169›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Differences in prescribed medicinal cannabis use by cannabinoid product composition: Findings from the cannabis as medicine survey 2020 (CAMS-20) Australia-wide study.

Benjamin T Trevitt, Sasha Bailey, Llewellyn Mills, Thomas R Arkell, Anastasia Suraev, Iain S McGregor, Nicholas Lintzeris

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin T TrevittDrug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-4528-4235
Sasha BaileyFaculty of Medicine and Health, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5625-7970
Llewellyn MillsDrug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Thomas R ArkellCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.
Anastasia SuraevThe University of Sydney, Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Iain S McGregorThe University of Sydney, Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nicholas LintzerisDrug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUSwinburne University of Technology · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrescribed medicinal cannabis (MC) is an increasingly common prescription in Australia for treating pain, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Prescribed MC products generally contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) in a variety of dose levels and forms. It is unclear whether THC and CBD products are used by patients with different characteristics and for different conditions.

objectivesTo examine consumer experiences of using THC- and CBD-containing prescribed MC products to better understand how they are being used within the Australian context.

methodsWe utilised data collected from an online anonymous cross-sectional survey of individuals (CAMS-20 survey), consisting of Australian residents using cannabis for therapeutic reasons. We focused on a subgroup of participants (N = 546) receiving prescribed MC products. We utilised linear, logistic, and multinomial regression modelling to analyse responses to survey questions based on the cannabinoid profile of the prescribed product.

resultsParticipants prescribed THC-dominant MC products were statistically more likely to be younger, male, and to prefer inhaled routes of administration than participants using CBD-dominant products who were older, female, and preferred oral routes of administration. Pain and mental health were the most common reasons for all types of prescribed MC, but were more likely to be treated with THC than CBD despite the significantly higher risk of mild to severe drowsiness, dry mouth and eye irritation. Consumer reported effectiveness of prescribed MC was very positive, particularly for THC-containing products. Consumers on opioids and antipsychotics were statistically more likely to be prescribed THC-containing products than products containing CBD only, despite the greater risk of impairment.

conclusionsThis Australia-wide study found clear differences in consumer-reported experiences of prescribed THC- and CBD-containing products. Current prescriptions of these products do not always align with relevant clinical guidance. Educating prescribers around cannabinoid products is essential to ensure optimal prescribing practices and to prevent avoidable drug side effects and interactions.

Indexed as

CannabidiolCannabinoidsCannabisHallucinogensMedical MarijuanaAustraliaCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsCross-Sectional StudiesDronabinolFemaleHumansMalePainCannabidiolCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsCannabinoidsDronabinolHallucinogensMedical Marijuana

Identifiers

PMID38354169
PMCPMC10866492
OpenAlexW4391808440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.